5 ms·

This is kinda funny and hypocritical when you devote a few brain cells to this. Every country is gathering data on everyone. If you think they are respecting y

This is kinda funny and hypocritical when you devote a few brain cells to this. Every country is gathering data on everyone. If you think they are respecting your privacy, you’re naive. The US has been doing it for years. Secretly. EU and I bet you Australia too. And even China, yes. But hey, at least China is honest about what they’re doing. Gotta respect that at least. Point is, it’s just a show.

zaro 8y ago
My thoughts exactly, only that somebody else gets the downvotes :)
- chrisper 8y ago
  Doesn't look like your plan worked out.
  - zaro 8y ago
    Haha.. Yeah, it was worth trying though.
ethbro 8y ago
I'm going to take issue with this, because I see this line of argument a lot on HN recently. There is a fundamental difference between "like in kind" and "like in severity". Do the US and China both monitor telecom? Yes. Has the US built a national firewall? No. Do the US and China both have legal processes for acquiring court ordered telecom intercepts? Yes. Is the US legal system wholly subordinate to political goals? No. Do the US and Chinese governments lean on companies to comply with their wishes? Yes. Do US companies survive at the whim of the US government and generally lack independent legal recourse to fight pressure? No. If you want to go through point-by-point with what's similar between Chinese and US data monitoring regimes, I'm happy to do so. But they aren't close to the same.
- e40 8y ago
  I really dislike the "they're both the same" arguments. People do the same about the US political parties (and use this as an excuse to either not vote, or vote for their favorite side, based on this). This thinking allows people to let the worse offender off the hook.
  - lightbyte 8y ago
    "they're both the same" is never an argument, it's a lazy cop out from someone who is either too cynical or disillusioned to care and do their own research.
  - wenc 8y ago
    It's fallacious outcome of analogical thinking which says "because two things have some things in common, they have everything in common". It's a pretty common fallacy [1], and easily deconstructed if recognized. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_m...
- pelario 8y ago
  Not a fan or defensor of China here; but the US has way more history of intervention in other countries; so I would be much much worried about US-based companies that provide searching or social networking services
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    But China has a worse record of human rights abuses. In regards to intervention in other countries, China consumes them. Tibet, Taiwan no longer exist according to China. They've all got bad history. If God existed and was to strike down on the unworthy nations of the world, very few would be spared. And I dislike this as much as any rational person (hello? rational people...?) but if it came to choosing sides in what appears to be inevitable future conflict, I'd choose the US over China and Russia. I hate that it's the case, but the US, I think, is the least worst option. This may be based purely on cultural familiarity, but, well, there it is.
PJDK 8y ago
I don't see how this follows. All countries have spy agencies - they usually have two roles to spy on other people, and prevent other people spying on them. This seems like a pretty reasonable state of affairs. How does the fact Australia spies on China (one presumes) mean they shouldn't worry about China being able to spy on Australia?
pfortuny 8y ago
You can most of the time choose your enemies and your allies. This is just one choice more.
trumped 8y ago
I don't think it's just a show... they want to try to block China's access to our data because they want to be the only ones with it. Maybe I only have one brain cell left.
spacehunt 8y ago
> China is honest about what they’re doing As far as I know, China has denied all allegations of them spying on Australia. Has this changed?
BLKNSLVR 8y ago
To add weight to your point in regards to Australia's hypocrisy, there's an on-going case where a now ex-member of one of Australia's intelligence agencies blew the whistle on Australia's illegal surveillance of the East Timorese government. Currently they're trying to prosecute the whistle-blower AND his lawyer for "revealing state secrets" as a tactic to draw out the process. See here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/witness-k-and-bernard-collaery-charged-intelligence-act-breach/9919268 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/witness-k-and-bernard-... And for a larger history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93East_Timor_spying_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93East_Timor_s... The ASD (Australian Signals Directorate - equivalent to the NSA) mission statement is: Reveal their secrets - Protect our own. Which I suppose is in keeping with banning any non-purely-Australian-owned vendors from participating in any communications infrastructure project. I don't think there are any purely-home-grown Australian 5G infrastructure manufacturers though.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bogomipz 8y ago
>"Every country is gathering data on everyone. If you think they are respecting your privacy, you’re naive" This isn't about data gathering or respecting privacy, this is false equivalency. This is about infrastructure, specifically the integrity of a country's telecom infrastructure at the hardware level. The ability to compromise or disrupt a country's Telecom infrastructure is seen as a matter of national security by every country. The article even site the control plane difference in 5G: >"“This new architecture provides a way to circumvent traditional security controls by exploiting equipment in the edge of the network – exploitation which may affect overall network integrity and availability, as well as the confidentiality of customer data." There are basically only 5 vendors in the mobile switching space. ZTE and Huawei are both Chinese vendors while the 3 remaining vendors are European - Ericsson(Sweden), Nokia(Finland) and Alcatel-Lucent(France.) None of those last 3 non-Chinese vendors have a record of human rights abuses, censorship or state-sponsored hacking. If you worked in an agency in a Western government tasked with providing procurement guidelines for network operators in which vendors would you prefer?
- baybal2 8y ago
  You forgot Samsung
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    Do they actually make switching gear? I wasn't aware that they were in that space? Do you know what carriers use their gear?
    - baybal2 8y ago
      They have an amplifier and tower business as I know
notfromhere 8y ago
"Sure, someone is robbing my house, but at least they're honest about their intentions of doing so" is not a good argument.

zaro 8y ago

My thoughts exactly, only that somebody else gets the downvotes :)

chrisper 8y ago
Doesn't look like your plan worked out.
- zaro 8y ago
  Haha.. Yeah, it was worth trying though.

ethbro 8y ago

I'm going to take issue with this, because I see this line of argument a lot on HN recently. There is a fundamental difference between "like in kind" and "like in severity". Do the US and China both monitor telecom? Yes. Has the US built a national firewall? No. Do the US and China both have legal processes for acquiring court ordered telecom intercepts? Yes. Is the US legal system wholly subordinate to political goals? No. Do the US and Chinese governments lean on companies to comply with their wishes? Yes. Do US companies survive at the whim of the US government and generally lack independent legal recourse to fight pressure? No. If you want to go through point-by-point with what's similar between Chinese and US data monitoring regimes, I'm happy to do so. But they aren't close to the same.

e40 8y ago
I really dislike the "they're both the same" arguments. People do the same about the US political parties (and use this as an excuse to either not vote, or vote for their favorite side, based on this). This thinking allows people to let the worse offender off the hook.
- lightbyte 8y ago
  "they're both the same" is never an argument, it's a lazy cop out from someone who is either too cynical or disillusioned to care and do their own research.
- wenc 8y ago
  It's fallacious outcome of analogical thinking which says "because two things have some things in common, they have everything in common". It's a pretty common fallacy [1], and easily deconstructed if recognized. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_m...
pelario 8y ago
Not a fan or defensor of China here; but the US has way more history of intervention in other countries; so I would be much much worried about US-based companies that provide searching or social networking services
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  But China has a worse record of human rights abuses. In regards to intervention in other countries, China consumes them. Tibet, Taiwan no longer exist according to China. They've all got bad history. If God existed and was to strike down on the unworthy nations of the world, very few would be spared. And I dislike this as much as any rational person (hello? rational people...?) but if it came to choosing sides in what appears to be inevitable future conflict, I'd choose the US over China and Russia. I hate that it's the case, but the US, I think, is the least worst option. This may be based purely on cultural familiarity, but, well, there it is.

PJDK 8y ago

I don't see how this follows. All countries have spy agencies - they usually have two roles to spy on other people, and prevent other people spying on them. This seems like a pretty reasonable state of affairs. How does the fact Australia spies on China (one presumes) mean they shouldn't worry about China being able to spy on Australia?

pfortuny 8y ago

You can most of the time choose your enemies and your allies. This is just one choice more.

trumped 8y ago

I don't think it's just a show... they want to try to block China's access to our data because they want to be the only ones with it. Maybe I only have one brain cell left.

spacehunt 8y ago

> China is honest about what they’re doing As far as I know, China has denied all allegations of them spying on Australia. Has this changed?

BLKNSLVR 8y ago

To add weight to your point in regards to Australia's hypocrisy, there's an on-going case where a now ex-member of one of Australia's intelligence agencies blew the whistle on Australia's illegal surveillance of the East Timorese government. Currently they're trying to prosecute the whistle-blower AND his lawyer for "revealing state secrets" as a tactic to draw out the process. See here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/witness-k-and-bernard-collaery-charged-intelligence-act-breach/9919268 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/witness-k-and-bernard-... And for a larger history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93East_Timor_spying_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93East_Timor_s... The ASD (Australian Signals Directorate - equivalent to the NSA) mission statement is: Reveal their secrets - Protect our own. Which I suppose is in keeping with banning any non-purely-Australian-owned vendors from participating in any communications infrastructure project. I don't think there are any purely-home-grown Australian 5G infrastructure manufacturers though.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bogomipz 8y ago

>"Every country is gathering data on everyone. If you think they are respecting your privacy, you’re naive" This isn't about data gathering or respecting privacy, this is false equivalency. This is about infrastructure, specifically the integrity of a country's telecom infrastructure at the hardware level. The ability to compromise or disrupt a country's Telecom infrastructure is seen as a matter of national security by every country. The article even site the control plane difference in 5G: >"“This new architecture provides a way to circumvent traditional security controls by exploiting equipment in the edge of the network – exploitation which may affect overall network integrity and availability, as well as the confidentiality of customer data." There are basically only 5 vendors in the mobile switching space. ZTE and Huawei are both Chinese vendors while the 3 remaining vendors are European - Ericsson(Sweden), Nokia(Finland) and Alcatel-Lucent(France.) None of those last 3 non-Chinese vendors have a record of human rights abuses, censorship or state-sponsored hacking. If you worked in an agency in a Western government tasked with providing procurement guidelines for network operators in which vendors would you prefer?

baybal2 8y ago
You forgot Samsung
- bogomipz 8y ago
  Do they actually make switching gear? I wasn't aware that they were in that space? Do you know what carriers use their gear?
  - baybal2 8y ago
    They have an amplifier and tower business as I know

notfromhere 8y ago

"Sure, someone is robbing my house, but at least they're honest about their intentions of doing so" is not a good argument.